The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 99154
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Time to make the argument of my avatar.

No Trolling.
Cite Sources in Comments
New Arguments can be Made at any time (but remember, if you do this, you will have less time to defend a new argument and/or substantiate it)
If you do choose to cite a book, please cite in MLA format, and also provide a link to the book on Amazon or some other retail site. Google Books may be cited as a secondary.
No Sources in the First Argument. You may reference, but not directly quote, although a quote will be expected in the following arguments.
I am intending that this be the first in a series of debates I have planned on this subject.
When accepting, please state whether or not I am permitted to quote from your arguments for my personal work on the subject matter.

Order of Rounds:
Round 1: Opening Statements (No Sources, just state your case)
Round 2: Elaborations (Sources Start Here)
Round 3: Refutations
Round 4: Rebuttals/Continue Refutations.
Round 5: Closing Arguments (Sources permitted here)



History is littered with the actions of sadistic kings, cruel conquerors, and wicked bandits. From the ancient Assyrians so well known for decimating cities to the mass crucifixions imposed by Imperial Roman Order, to the unfeeling vicious raiding of the Barbars and the nearly genocidal reaction of the European Crusaders, all the way the the Enlightenment, which culminated in the Terror, examples of human cruelty can be found in abundance. Even today the modern world we still bear witness to human cruelty. From terrorists to serial killers, we still see the evidence of the truth of Human Nature.

I propose that Cruelty is the very essence of Human Nature. Like the beasts from which we evolved, we are still very vicious and violent. Although we have accepted various morals, whether they be social or moral, Human Nature still finds a way. Whether it be through truly neglecting those in need, such as the homeless, or living out violent fantasies in media provided for us, we still indeed very vicious (Albeit in a more acceptable way).

The reality of Human Cruelty cannot be denied. We are still very much beasts of the jungle, and will most likely never evolve beyond that (as if there is truly anything that is really beyond that). This is a fact which has not gone unnoticed throughout the pages of philosophy. From ancient China's Xunzi to Hobbes to Sade, we see Cruelty discussed not the End result of circumstances, but as the Means to whatever Ends are desired.

Whether one takes the testament of history, the writings of philosophers, or one's own empirical analysis, one cannot deny the fact that Cruelty is at the Heart of our Nature as Human Beings. To deny this is to deny reality and envelop one's self in a dream world. Cruelty is our most essential character trait as a species.


I apologise for my short answer to this big claim, if cruelty is the most common trait, heart of human nature..

From an evolutionary point of view overall cruelty is definitely not advantegous over a long time, violence, aggressive behaviour, these traits do exist, but it is definitely not a trait that is show the most in human beings, or even animals in general that matter.
That is the reason why Europe has become a very stable place on this planet to live, we are capable of that,
because we are definitely not cruel animals by heart.

second - you can even test this claim of yours very quickly,
if cruelty is the most commonly used adjective to describe humans in your life,
then.. I'm sorry for you, you deserve better than that.
Debate Round No. 1




Ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi's eponymous work might be one of the earliest philosophical efforts offering a discourse on human cruelty. So in defending my position, I must accept his reasoning for Human Cruelty. Cruelty is not the ends, but the means by which humans satisfy their "natural dispositions, their eyes desire the utmost in sights, their ear deire the utmost in sounds, their mouths desire the utmost in flavors, their noses desire the utmost in smells, and their bodies desire the utmost in comfort" (Xunzi, 104). Later, the Chinese sage offers a full discourse entitled Human Nature is Bad. He begins without wasting any time. "People's nature is bad. Their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort" (Xunzi, 248).

To obtain the positive extremes of the "five utmosts" defined by Xunzi (that is, the most pleasurable physical stimuli available), one must utilize cruelty. It should be mentioned here that violence is not the only form of Human Cruelty. Since people are very rarely satisfied with their lot, they will always seek that which is better. Here comes the more subtle kinds of Human Cruelty: deception, avarice, infidelity, and manipulation. There are countless examples of employers promising a promotion or a raise to an employee in exchange for extra effort, only to deny the promotion or the raise once the effort has been input. Is this not deception? There are, in the examples of avarice, of course thieves. However, the heads of the most powerful corporations abandon employees once some source cheaper labor presents itself in order to increase their own income by saving on the wages owed to labor. Is this not also avarice? Again countless stories exist regarding a man abandoning his wife for a more beautiful woman ("their eyes desire the utmost sights) and an equal amount of tales telling of a woman abandoning her husband for a wealthier man ("their bodies desire the utmost comfort"). They do practice infidelity, do they not; and is this not cruel to the abandoned spouse? With regards to manipulation, the word itself has become synonymous with Macchiavellianism. Manipulation has been the tool not only of individuals being cruel to others, but of political regimes manipulation whole populations in order to furnish the leaders of the regime with the Five Utmosts.


In his most famous work, political theorist Thomas Hobbes described the State of Nature, or "War of every man against every man" (Hobbes, 188) and the antidote to this constant state of war, accepting the Social Contract and establishing a Common-Wealth, with a sovereign power: "The office of the Sovereign (be it a Monarch or an Assembly) be it in the end, for which he was trusted with the Sovereign Power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people" (Hobbes, 376).

The Sovereign's intended purpose is to prevent the Cruelty that I say is the Heart of Human Nature. Yet, how is he supposed to do that? With Cruelty of Course! The Punishment, as defined by Hobbes, "is an Evil inflicted by public Authority, on him that has done, or omitted that which is Judged by the same Authority to be a Transgression of the Law; to the end that the will of men may thereby be better disposed to obedience" (Hobbes, 353). Are not legal sentences such as fines, imprisonment, and execution merely State sanctioned forms of robbery, kidnapping, and muder? Are these not cruel?

To conclude the portion of my argument regarding Leviathan, I must point out that history is filled with examples of Sovereign powers which did nothing to procure the safety of the people. From the cruelty of the ancient empires to the mass murdering regimes of the Twentieth Century, there are many Sovereigns which have thought nothing of the welfare of their own people, and considered only how to obtain the "Five Utmosts" for members and agents in the governing body.


It is impossible to discuss Human Cruelty without discussing the Marquis de Sade, the man from who's name the word "sadism" is derived. Although his most famous work is the infamous novel Justine (of which Napoleon Bonaparte said "Justine is the most abomidable book ever engendered by the most depraved imagination"), the Marquis' magnum opus is the sequel, Juliette. Let us examine the philosophy presented within these pages.

Speaking of the most Cruel thing one Human can do to another, the Marquis writes, "Murder is one of [Nature's] laws; whenever she feels the need for murder, she inspires in us a longing to commit it" (Sade, 765). This is not to propose that Nature is some sort of all-powerful deity, for Sade states a little later "Nature cannot bind ma by any law, man is no way dependent upoin Nature, neither is answerable to the other, they cannot harm or help each other" (Sade, 767). Although murder is the most extreme form of cruelty, insert any other act of cruelty, whether it be one I have already provided an example of or one which you can imagine of your own, and the first quote still remains true. We adhere to our Nature; just as the Libertine Juliette murders indiscriminately to achieve her ends, her modern equivalent, an unfaithful woman, cheats indiscriminately to attain the upper limits of the "Five Utmosts" available to her. Or, as to retain balance between the sexes, imagine if you will Juliette's masculine protege, a rising businessman who connives against his colleagues and even his superiors in order to obtain the upper limits of the "Five Utmosts" available to him.

Let us now consider manipulation, which Sade discusses a little before this discourse on murder. In the story, the Pope leads Juliette to the overflowing treasure vault of the Holy See. Sade can be quoted thusly: "Sixtus V founded it as a testimonial to the stupidity of Christians" (Sade, 761). Such is the cruelty of manipulation used by not only the heads of powerful and large religions, but also of movements. How many political movements or self-described activists have taken in large donations only to offer little to no results? And how many donors are still swearing that the Cruel thief is in the right?

The chronological order of my philosophical case is purely coincidental to the true reasons for this organization. Here I shall offer a quote of Sade's that will link us to the historical case. "Still infatuated with his depopulation measures, his aim in the present plot was to starve two-thirds of France to dath, by engrossing foodstuffs, grans cheifly, on a colossal scale" (Sade, 549).


In light of the last quote left in the Philosophical Case, we must examine the mass starvations in recent history. Let us first not forget that the Marquis de Sade was a member of the French nobility (albeit imprisoned) at the time of the French Revolution. That Revolution was indeed ignited by a famine in France, and it is quite possible, given that France was at the time experiencing overpopulation problems, so the claim the Marquis makes might not be entirely false: there might have indeed been a plot by the higher echelons of French society to starve a large percentage of the population in order to make them more manageable. Although, assuming this conjecture to be true, this backfired and led to the overthrow of the Ancien Regime, there have been countless other artificial famines induced by totalitarian regimes. From Stalin's Holodomor to the mass starvation in Maoist China, Sovereigns can be as cruel as to impose famine as a population control measure.

I the historical case I will keep away from ancient history, such as the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans, and instead concentrate upon much more recent events.

So let us examine individual cruelty today.

I could just list serial killers and rapists and kidnappers, but as that these individuals constitute only a miniscule percentage of the population, I shall concentrate on those who operate within the bounds of the Social Contract.

So, in the name of controversy, let us consider those women that demand public funding for abortions[4]. Currently, in the US, there is the Hyde Amendment[5] which restricts public funding for abortions, allowing only for certain circumstances. Repeal of this Act would drect money away from other Welfare sources, however proponents of repeal do not care because they wish to obtain more physical pleasure at the expense of others, seeking for themselves the "Five Utmosts" without regards for the finances or moral sentiments of others. How is this not Cruelty?

In my discussion on Juliette, I left an unanswered question. Although we can all point at the Vatican and see greed and avarice in action, we can do the same with multiple Secular orgnizations. The Veterans' Charity Wounded Warriors was hit by a scandal last year when it was revealed that top executives of the Charity were spending lavishly upon themselves[6]. In another example, Feminist game critic Anita Sarkeesian received over $150,000 to review sexism in video games.[7] Promising 12 videos covering 12 topics, she only released 3 videos covering 3 topics[8]. However, the amount spent on salaries and wages increased dramatically. In both of these cases, how is either different from the Catholic Church? They both requested donations, received them, and then mishandled the funds. And although Feminist Frequency created no real victims, Wounded Warrior did abandon many of the veterans they were claiming to help[9].

Now I must discuss political cruelty. I will not discuss the artificial genocides I discussed above or the Holocaust, as that those topics are already well documented. Instead, let us discuss the Political Cruelty exhibited in Revolutions. From Che Guevara's mass murdering of dissidents following the successful revolution in Cuba to the thousands killed in the Terror of 1792, we see cruelty is a tool of sovereigns. America is also not immune. The rebellions following the American Revolution were put down violently as well.


Quotes of philosophers are unfortunately irrelevant when it comes to this matter and take us no closer finding the answers to this question...
... we are talking about traits of human beings, animal, which can be observed in nature and take conclusions.

I appreciate your examples which you have posted in your argument, examples where humans have acted in a not kind way towards other human beings, there is modern slavery, human trafficking in this world, drug wars etc.. etc.. been in the history of mankind and will be to the near future. Does that mean cruelty is the heart of human nature?
Absolutely not.
For once, answer this question and argue it,
is the world today or not in it's most least cruel state that is has ever been in it's history?

I say it is, which means humans may be cruel, but is definitely not the most common trait in us.
For your claim to be true, you would have to be cruel also, I doubt that, you seem nice so far.
Debate Round No. 2


O Contraire my dear Con...the quotes of philosophers are very relevant to such a debate. Philosophers do not think or write in a secluded bubble, but they do so among people. They merely record and comment upon what they see. However, since the Philosophical argument is made, I shall now continue to demonstrate second and third points.


Not to delve too much into ancient history, but antiquity is rife with stories of cruel kings and sadistic nobility. From the cruelty of the Caesars, especially the infamous Caligula[1], to the Kirisute gomen right retained by Japanese Samurai[2], and all the way back to ancient Persia and the capital punishment known as Scaphism[3], we can see that when there is a distinct and strict hierarchy of power, it is not human kindness but Human Cruelty which is demonstrated.

However, one could chalk these up to the old Lord Acton quote "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", so allow me to demonstrate how political cruelty is used. (In my second argument I ran out of characters).

I will not be discussing here the Fascist or Communist atrocities of the last century, because they too closely resemble the authoritarian rule of the ancient emperors.

If we examine first the American Revolution, and separate the movement from the War, we see that it was founded on the Classical Liberal principles that every man can do whatsoever he wishes so long as he does not impede his neighbor from pursuing his own happiness. So why then, was the Whiskey Rebellion[4] put down with violence? Why was the complaint not given a sympathetic ear? After all, the rebellion, just like the War of Independence, was the result of unfair taxation.

The answer lies in another Enlightenment Revolution: The French Revolution. When examining the actions of the Jacobin Party and the Committee of Public Safety, the casual reader recoils in horror; many, both at the time and even today, claim that the French Revolution merely emulated the Ancien Regime and gave precedence to such horrors as the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Cultural Revolutions. Not so! To quote "The Incorruptible" Maximilien Robespierre, "If the Spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in Revolution are at once Virtue and Terror; Virtue, without which Terror is fatal; Terror, without which Virtue is impotence."[5]

Granted, those two great Revolutions which made the year 1789 the pinnacle of human history and human accomplishment, are now quite distant in the past. However, their method of enforcing the General Will on dissenters are no different than how today Societies deal with those who wish to violate to Social Contract and deviate from Social morality. Granted, we are not marching the Continental Army against protestors or hauling dissenters to the Guillotine, but the State still uses Cruelty to control the populace. Virtually every punishment prescribed to fit any given crime, in any other circumstance, would itself be considered a crime. Why is this, and why do they not use reason to correct the error? Because Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature.

If Reason instead of Cruelty was used to correct these errors, the wronged party would feel even more wronged. As Cruel beings, when we are wronged, we can only hope for Cruelty to right the wrong. We call this Revenge, and Revenge has been documented as feeling sweet[6].


Now, Con, you ask the question is the world the least cruel it has been in history. You ask as though this is a trumping question, but I answer that the world has always been Cruel, and it is no less Cruel today than it was in Caligula's Rome. Across the world, I need only point at various totalitarian regimes and terrorist movements to show the the violence associated with Cruelty is still very much around today. If you want to examine non-Totalitarian countries, we need only look South of the American border to Mexico, where drug cartels callude with the government to get rich at the expense of the commoners. If we examine this closer, we see that rather than fix their country (which at this point most likely requires a Revolution), the common Mexican merely emigrates to the United States, where he offers his labor for lower wages and thus deprives the native inhabitant of something. Again, is this not Cruel? Or let us examine the social workings of countries like the United States and Western Europe: these are referred to as concrete jungles because of the "kill or be killed" and "live and let die" lifestyles necessary to live in these Societies. And what are they competing for exactly? To be serfs, to live their whole life slaving in an office so that some one else far above them on the corporate totem pole can rake in an even bigger salary. Is this not comparable to Feudalism, and was Feudalism not cruel?



1st. Ever heard of arguments from authority?
Opinions, words said by philosophers, or anyone that matter are irrelevant when it comes to proving a hypotheses of a theory correct, in this case your claim if cruelty is the heart of human nature.
That claim can, again, be easily tested, since it can be observed in the nature, put into test.
- Non of this is debatable, since obviously cruelty is definitely not the most common trait seen in humans,
the verb of being cruel.

Yes, American revolution, French revolution, the Armenian genocide, World Wars, the crusades, all crimes against humanity done by the Japanese soldiers towards the Chinese, South Korean, massacres in all Africa throughout history of mankind. Humans in certain circumstances are and can be extremely cruel towards everything on their way.

From all that do you accuse of humans being cruel in the their hearts..
As you must be fully aware of yourself, you are just and only looking at the cruel acts ongoing in the world at the moment and done in the past.

Now le us state all the good deeds done by mankind.
Take an example your home country or mine, Finland.
We are humans, we live in complete peace, do you with a serious face accuse us of being cruel and acting like such?
Debate Round No. 3


Since I am writing this late at night, I am going to forgo sources for the this round.

You accuse me of arguments from authority. I was unaware I had some authority over you. If you are referring to my quotes by philosophers, I named three. Surely you can find at least one who would disagree.

Since you want testing, I recommend the Stanford Prison Experiment (just google it, I don't feel like sourcing here, as stated above). To give an overview, student volunteers were grouped into two categories: Guards and Prisoners. Prisoners had to take orders from Guards. The two groups were put into a single building and monitered by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, who was conducting the experiment. In the beginning, it started out like an ideal prison with a few harmless pranks pulled on Prisoners. However, it quickly devolved into sadism, with such things as being forced to drink from a toilet and sleep deprivation. The experiment got so brutal that it had to be shut down early.

Now we enter into the comments you make about the Revolutions and other actions in recent history which demonstrate my point. These are in fact, acts of Cruelty. Now, the reason individual citizens of countries, whether it be the United States, Finland, or Italy, or wherever, do not engage in Cruelty is out of fear of retaliation, or Cruelty in return. This is a major facet of the Social Contract.

You say that I am "just and only looking at the cruel acts ongoing in the world at the moment and in the past." I don't deny this, but find it odd that with ten thousand characters at your disposal and three posts so far, you have neglected to offer a single example demonstrating Human Kindness. No matter, I will do so now and show how it is influenced by Cruelty.

Let us examine the act of charity as seen in giving money to the needy. I don't know about Finland, but in the US it commonly heard that one should not just give money to beggars on the street. Two justifications are provided for this. The first the assumption that they will just use the money to buy intoxicants. How Cruel is that, to make a mere assumption about a person's behavior merely because they are begging! The second is that the act of giving money to beggars encourages panhandling. Again, this is Cruel. Those saying this are those that just don't want to see the needy and downtrodden, as not to be saddened by them. They are happy just sweeping the desperate under the rug! And how exactly is the desperate beggar to buy his next meal if not through panhandling? But no matter, the shoppers must not be scared off by a man down on his luck. Sensibilities must be respected!

Instead, it is suggested that the money should be given to charities. See above to see how some charities are corrupt. And besides, is it not better to give one beggar fifty dollars, instead of giving that same fifty to charity, who will take a portion for wages and other overhead, and then distribute what remains among several hundred beggars? The charity essentially takes large donations and converts into small change for the poor. I do not suppose this is by accident, as that if the desperate and down-trodden cease to exist, then the charities would be out of business!

This brings me to my next point in this argument post: What acts of kindness are done are not done out of pure love for one's neighbor, but out of a need for self-interest. People give to others in hopes that their gifts will be repaid somehow. People are kind to members of the opposite sex (or same sex in the cases to which it applies) out of the hopes of sexual intercourse. Even the truest of the religious, who espouse themselves to be selfless, are charitable in the hopes of being rewarded by whatever deity that they worship. People are Pragmatic, albeit some more than others.

However, we can see acts of Cruelty, especially small ones, being committed merely for the pleasure of doing so. Outcasts are ridiculed solely for the pleasure and hilarity found in ridicule. People cheat on their lovers to get back for some transgression.

If we were not a Cruel species, and our goal was in fact kindness, then such things would not be. Outcasts would be welcomed into communities. The panhandlers and beggars cups would overflow, and they would receive constant invitations to dinner and to spend the night. Those poor souls who seem unable to even get a date would find a sympathetic slut who would cure them of their virginity. Not a single woman would be abused by her man.

To make my final point: what large cruelties we do not commit, we entertain ourselves with through the media. Millions can quote names like Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy, but so few can name a single one of their victims. We live vicariously through the villains of slasher movies, and delight in the blood and gore (not unlike the ancient spectators watching gladiators in the Coliseum of Rome). When there is a protagonist against an antagonist in a story, we delight in the death of the antagonist.

Again, humans are an inherently Cruel species.


There is absolutely no question if some humans are cruel in somce certain situations, violent or whatnot.
Btw that experiment can not be taken seriously, conducted once, only males etc.. you apparently don't know how science goes in the long run.

But you are entirely, completely ignoring how kind and pleasant humans overwhelmingly are towards each other.
Our goal, in fact, is kindness, at least where I live and that is what we are from the bottom of our hearts, like Canadians.
well it doesn't matter what anyone says to you, your mind will still remain the same,
you are only human, how could you be anything else.

Just for this once, adress an extremely nice deed done by humans.
I don't know where you are from,
but is not welfare system any familiar to you?

Millions of workers work, earn money and everyone gives part of that so even the poorest people, even the criminals,
scum, people that don't want to work get food, healthcare and so on?
oh how cruel we humans are.
Debate Round No. 4


So my closing statements. I must first respond to three points of Con. The first being the easiest: You dismiss an experiment, and granted your reasons are real, but where is your evidence?

Secondly: In the comments (oddly enough as that you have 10,000 characters with which to work) you mock one of the examples of an ideal world I offer. My quote "Those poor souls who seem unable to even get a date would find a sympathetic slut who would cure them of their virginity", and you question if this is a joke. I notice you do not think the following line is a joke. Now I propose you put that in the comments to hide your lack of empathy for a specific group, and your CRUEL mockery of them.

Finally, the Welfare Argument. Of course the welfare system is held up by many as a testament of Human progress, but it's not. First, the economics of welfare do very little good for those on it, providing them with only the basic necessities and often placing restrictions on what they can and cannot do. But let us also tear your argument to shreds: "Millions of workers work, earn money and everyone gives part of that so even the poorest people, even the criminals,
scum, people that don't want to work get food, healthcare and so on?" Let us discount the poorest people and the criminals, as that not every poor individual is poor by bad decisions and once criminals have served their time, then they are back in Society. However, it is the next two groups: the "scum" and "people that don't want to work" that demonstrates Human Cruelty. I cannot discern the group to whom you direct the word "scum" but can only assume you mean uncaught Criminals. Sad, but no way for the State to know. However, as for "people that don't want to work", isn't it Cruel that the State takes those persons in jobs, some in jobs they despise, and forces them to surrender a portion of their wages to provide wages to a group that can only be defined as lazy?



People are Cruel. Cursory glances throughout history, philosophy, and deep reflection will tell you that.

Au Revoir!


1st A person who does not want to sleep with you you, so you could lose your virginity, yes, my apologies for thinking that was a joke.
You can always pay a slut to sleep with you. You both get what you want that way..
Not much to do with your claim of human cruelty.

2nd about the welfare system.
How cruel of me to be willing to work, earn money and give money to the people that refuse to work and do nothing
so they can have an apartment to live in, buy food and booze with them and have healthcare.
Not bare minium, much more,

Not cruel to make us pay for those people, it'd be cruel to let them suffer.
Since we are not cruel, we pay for those individuals.

And yes I agree with you that humans can be cruel, and sometimes even are.
But overwhelmingly towars each other humans are definitely not, in our day to day lives.
A few bad apples can't make the rest of us look bad.

Auf wiedersehen. Kind person.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Odotellessa 2 years ago
. Those poor souls who seem unable to even get a date would find a sympathetic slut who would cure them of their virginity.

I assume that was a joke of yours, to lighten up the mood was it not?

And just buy the beggars what they truly need, shelter, food, no money, they suck at using money.
Posted by LuciferWept 2 years ago
For argument 3

5) Robespierre, Maximilien. Virtue and Terror. Trans. John Howe. London: Verso, 2007. Print.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Point is...What is...
Posted by LuciferWept 2 years ago
1) Xunzi. Xunzi: The Complete Text. Trans. Eric Hutton. Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2014. Print.
amazon :

2) Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penguin , 1985. Print.

3) De Sade, Marquis. Juliette: or, Vice Amply Rewarded. Trans. Austryn Wainhouse. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Print.
NOT ONLINE in English

Posted by canis 2 years ago
Nature is cruel.. = nature is nature. Nature is not cruel.. = nature is nature.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ILikePie5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied, as there is no name calling, or profanity towards each other. S/G is tied as both sides had a few grammatical errors, but overall the message was understandable. Arguments goes to Pro, as they provides contentions and backed the claims up with evidence. Con even conceded in his case that human cruelty is a part of human nature in this quote, "I say it is, which means humans may be cruel, but is definitely not the most common trait in us." Regardless if the trait is used commonly or not, Con concedes that cruelty does exist. Along with this, Con merely provided claims, with zero data to back it up, and their arguments were very vague. Sources goes to Pro, as they actually used sources unlike Con, some of which were unreliable such as Wikipedia, but some sources were reliable. As PRO at least provided a reliable source, they deserve the point.